Invisible Man, Ralph Ellison

Invisible Man is as powerful as any book out there. It's a snapshot of 1950s America, set in the increasingly disruptive district of Harlem. The main character is the narrator, and he goes through a lot of intense coming-of-age situations involving keen opportunists and the use of his race for their benefit. 

In my opinion, it isn't only the color of his skin that makes him invisible. It is also the power and originality of his voice, which is something a lot of people have ostracized themselves over, regardless of race. He knew that his ideas and talents aroused a lot of jealousy and insecurity in people that knew him, so he decided to cut the ties that bound him to them. A lot of us can empathize with this. We've all had to become socially invisible at times, and that's what makes this book a classic for all demographics. 

Syria, American Imperialism

In reply to a comment about the justification of America invading Syria to protect itself from Russian access to oil: 
 
    You make an interesting point.  Syria is the only country that borders both Iraq and the Mediterranean.  In addition to your statement about the Suez Canal I must point out that it would be much cheaper for us to move petroleum to the Mediterranean without having to go all the way around the Arabian peninsula.  However, I urge you to consider that this is only a part of the greater design of imperialism.  It is not only to control places for strategic purposes but to gain allegiances from its people.  In the old days (and even now in remote areas of the world) we used the men as mercenaries and the women for breeding.  Now we use both sexes for consumerism and call them liberated. 
    The original America was not evil, but ever since Manifest Destiny was deemed the Holy Grail it has lost sight of its original glory.  The founding fathers were geniuses and they had an enormous impact on the downfall of monarchy.  I am in favor of the democratic process, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to be working lately.  However, if you don't think America has a history of classic imperialism then you are more ignorant than I thought.  They don't teach us that the conquering of Native Americans was a genocide, but it was, and there's no argument against that.  What we did to them was even worse than Tibet- we took out thousands of tribes over a much larger area.  Then there were our attempts to conquer Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines and other Pacific Islands.  Those failed because we couldn't expand any longer; you can only occupy so much of the globe before it blows back on you.  We were bordered by two oceans and we didn't have the manpower to occupy half the world, just like every empire before us. Instead we found a new way to extend our influence: invade 3rd world countries, install "democracy" so we don't have to control them, and drain them of revenue by lending at ridiculous interest rates and ripping off their exports.  It was a new kind of imperialism we needed because we couldn't have kept expanding in the classical sense.  In fact I would argue that our imperialism is the greatest in history, since we've found a way to extend it beyond its physical limitations.  It's not nearly as oppressive as others but it does have more influence than them.  Economically it is the greatest empire ever built, but not politically.  I did not read this in any "propagandist" book; it is pretty straight forward if you look it with clear eyes. 
    Why do you think the entire world is against us invading Syria?  Is it because they appreciate that we've installed quasi-democracy everywhere?  No.  Our brand of democracy was a lie and everyone knows it. 

Ideological Amnesty: The Philosophical Parallels Between Science and Religion

    It’s hard to find a moral person that isn’t bound by dogma.  Nor is it easy to find a rational person that isn’t bound by science.  A moral person shouldn’t need the restrictions of religious thought in order to be courteous to others, and a rational person shouldn’t need the rigidity of academia in order to understand the world.  It’s a shame that most humans seem to need to sacrifice one of the two- love or reason- in order to be complete in the other.  The only groups of humans that seem to accept both hemispheres of being are philosophers and artists.  And yet, many of these people feel more comfortable without being labeled as such- and labeled anything for that matter.  Labels are constricting.  They only apply to men who desire to be a part of an entity that puts them in competition with others.  Men of faith and science are both guilty of inspiring opposition on their respective fronts, and respond to disagreements by calculating the proper cliche preached by their doctrines.  If you truly weren’t an argumentative person and you weren’t a member of any ideology, then you wouldn’t have any labels to associate and defend yourself with.  You would open your heart and mind to all factions of the world, question all information coming to you, and be free of all the associations that divide you from others. 
    Few men of science believe in the intangible implications of love and art.  They have accepted the cynicism of a dog-eat-dog society and can only see what is in front them.  Their inability to value the virtues of faith, whether it comes naturally to them or is simply innate, blinds them from maintaining healthy relationships, and they are unhappy as a result of it.  Likewise, few men of faith believe in the freedom of theoretical thinking and non-traditional practice.  Their narrow thinking has isolated them inside a box that is dominated by their preconceptions and expectations.  All the information that doesn’t comply with their faith is filtered out and ignored, for fear of an Almighty voice castigating them into the pits of Hell, or the mental breakdown they must face when confronting disillusionment.  Both of these routes are detrimental to personal growth.  As spiritual beings, we are invited to taste the fruits of all nations and ideologies, so that we may gather the most wisdom from all sources of life.  If we are to narrow our points of view inside microscopic filters of perspective, then we’ll never reach higher stages of development.   The common ingredient both of these legions of thinkers have is a fear of loneliness.  Men who seek the solace of like-minded individuals, without questioning the logic of religion or the uncertainties of science, do not possess the courage needed to think for themselves.  They need an idea to think for them- an "ology" or an “ism” (including atheism)- so that they can feel like they are a part of a social group, no matter how absurd its tenets are.
    The suffering of those who are fearless enough to embrace their originality has created the greatest artists and inventors the world has ever seen.  At the expense of their social lives, they’ve isolated themselves in order to formulate new paradigms of thought for the world to embrace.  They have sacrificed acceptance for reclusion.  It takes a strong mind to do so, especially if their train of thought is so strange that nobody wants anything to do with them.  Ironically, their originality may eventually attract followers to their ways of thinking- such as disciples or those inspired  by their work- and new social groups may be created out of their resolve to be alone.  Unknowingly, these innovators have attracted billions to their methods and crafts, often posthumously.  Most of them were not religious or scientific, and if we see them as being so today, it was not true during their lifetimes.
    All of the greatest thinkers, artists, and inventors have embraced suffering, not run away from it and hid behind the conventions of dogma and tradition.  Much of that is represented in their work, as a form of escape from the constrictions of thought that they couldn’t tolerate.  Dostoyevsky said that “Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart.  The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on Earth.”  You don’t have to be religious in order to be more pious and possess morals that are superior to even the highest priests.  You don’t have to be a scientist in order to be the most brilliant thinker in a certain field.  The most brilliant thinkers and the most moral of individuals are the ones that broke away from the mold and revolutionized the way we look at the world.  Conversely, the most awful tyrants and repressors are the ones who beat their ideologies into people without regard for the sacredness of life or the freedom of individuality.
    This is why love conquers fear and liberality defeats conservation.  Conservation wants to hold onto the past and hold time at gunpoint, which is against nature and the dimensions that our universe constructed.  Liberality lets us evolve into the timeless beings we were meant to become, and is not afraid of losing things that we cherished so strongly in our past that we are too weak to let go of in the present.  Jesus himself was more liberal than conservative, and it is uncanny that modern Christianity, which pretends to preach all his ideals, hypocritically denies progress and holds onto conservative values.  He knew that evolution really meant a convergence with God, and he is arguably the greatest teacher of morals in the western hemisphere.  The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was not convincing the world that he didn’t exist, but that he convinced those who believed in God to be his true disciples.